Kansas champions of administrative reform at public universities offer concessions to calm skeptics

By: Tim Carpenter
Kansas Reflector

TOPEKA — The Republican majority leader of the Kansas House and the chief of staff to Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly worked Thursday to resolve objections to a bill designed to make the state’s three largest public universities more financially efficient by removing layers of administrative red tape.

The bipartisan messages from House Majority Leader Chris Croft and Kelly’s chief of staff, Will Lawrence, and their willingness to endorse two key amendments to House Bill 2798, were sufficient to convince the chairman of Kansas Board of Regents to offer qualified support for the legislation.

All three urged removal from the bill of a provision limiting the Board of Regents’ role in administering the University of Kansas, Wichita State University and Kansas State University to use of state-appropriated dollars. In addition, they agreed regulatory relief in the bill should be extended to Fort Hays State University, Pittsburg State University and Emporia State University. The House Higher Education Budget Committee took the recommendations under advisement, and the committee’s chairman indicated the panel would start work on amending the bill on Monday.

“With the two changes you heard about today, the Board of Regents would be supportive of HB 2798 and its goal of improving university processes and operational efficiency,” said Blake Benson, chair of the state Board of Regents. “Our goal is to preserve accountability for public assets while thoughtfully addressing operational issues across all state universities.”

On Wednesday, the Board of Regents unanimously voted to oppose the current version of the bill because of concerns it significantly eroded the nine-member board’s authority over the three largest public universities in Kansas.

‘Speed of innovation’

The legislation emerged from behind-the-scenes meetings that began last fall among House Speaker Dan Hawkins, Senate President Ty Masterson, Kelly, Croft and Lawrence that eventually were broadened to include other legislators, university administrators and the Board of Regents. Initially, the idea was to expand the conversation to include the three smaller state universities, but there wasn’t time to engage with those institutions.

“The goal was, how do we enable our research universities to operate at the speed of innovation and to drive that speed of innovation,” said Croft, an Overland Park Republican. “That’s the underlying thing in everything we were trying to do. It relieves the R1s (doctoral research universities) of costly, bureaucratic entanglements while applying the appropriate oversight. We recognize this wasn’t an end-all, be-all. This is a good-faith effort.”

Lawrence, the chief of staff to the governor and chair of the closed-door planning sessions for the bill, said the ad hoc group didn’t have time to bring ESU, PSU and FHSU into conversations about regulatory change. So, he said, the decision was made not to include those universities in the bill.

“Didn’t want to put them in the bill, have them learn about it from the bill, freak out, not know what this is. So, we kept it to the three research universities,” he said.

Lawrence said the Board of Regents and Kansas Legislature would maintain oversight of the university system. Changes contained in the bill would fall primarily on redundant business policies under jurisdiction of the Kansas Department of Administration. He said there was no effort made to modify the Legislature’s influence on the universities. He said some concerns expressed about the bill were “a little bit overblown.”

Skeptics challenged the wisdom of lowering guardrails on state university contracting, procurement, construction, capital planning, property management and other business functions. There were questions about the bill’s impact on student tuition, faculty tenure, bans on diversity, equity and inclusion policies, private equity firms in athletics, control over hiring university CEOs and taxpayer accountability. There were questions about universities selling cherished campus landmarks in context of putting KU’s Allen Fieldhouse up for sale.

“I’d just like assurance that this isn’t the beginning of the end for the Kansas Board of Regents,” said Rep. Kirk Haskins, D-Topeka.

“I think we have our work cut out for us,” said Rep. Adam Turk, a Shawnee Republican who chairs the House higher education committee. “This is a bill that requires work.”

Massive headwinds

Advocates for the bill said economic pressures on higher education institutions, including a decline in the college-age population and limitations of public funding for universities, required exploration of new avenues for efficiencies while continuing to meet high academic standards.

Doug Girod, chancellor at the University of Kansas, said the legislation would leave KU as a state-owned entity, a state agency and a state asset.

He said the nation’s higher education system was facing tremendous headwinds in terms of student enrollment, loss of federal research funding, the trend of declining state funding as a percentage of overall costs and wariness about substantial tuition increases. He said the House bill would benefit KU without destroying what Kansas taxpayers had spent more than a century building.

KU cut 140 jobs and $30 million from the budget, and since 2017, the university had found $145 million in efficiencies, Girod said. He said KU’s top goal was to find more resources to invest in faculty and staff salaries.

“It doesn’t matter if we have pretty buildings if there’s nobody in them and we can’t serve students,” Girod said.